To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Grand
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Grand Watershed Planning RegionStatewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Contents
Introduction 1
Regional Overview 1
Regional Summary . 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations . 2
Water Supply Options 4
Water Supply 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers 22
OCWP Provider Survey 31
Water Supply Options . 36
Limitations Analysis . 36
Primary Options 36
Demand Management 36
Out-of-Basin Supplies 36
Reservoir Use . 36
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 37
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 37
Expanded Options . 37
Expanded Conservation Measures . 37
Artificial Aquifer Recharge . 37
Marginal Quality Water Sources 37
Potential Reservoir Development . 37
Basin Data & Analysis 41
Basin 80 41
Basin 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Glossary 60
Grand Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Regional Overview
The Grand Watershed Planning Region includes two basins (numbered 80 and 81 for reference). The region encompasses 2,694 square miles in northeast Oklahoma, spanning all of Ottawa County and parts of Craig, Rogers, Mayes, Delaware, Wagoner, and Cherokee Counties.
The region is divided between the Central Lowland physiography province in the west and the Ozark Plateaus in the south and east. Encompassing some of the most scenic areas of the state, the region’s terrain includes forested mountains, rolling plains, and rich river basins. Tall grass prairies in the east with a mix of rangeland and cropland give way to oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine forests with livestock farming and logging land uses.
The region has a generally mild climate with annual mean temperatures varying from 59°F to 61°F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 42 inches in the northwest to 45 inches in the southeast. Annual evaporation is around 46 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include Miami (2010 population 13,573), Pryor Creek (9,239), and Vinita (6,208). The greatest demand is from Municipal and Industrial water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 57,600 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 20,000 AFY (54%) from 2010.
The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals:
Provide safe and dependable water supply for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations.
Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Grand Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.2 Grand Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Grand Region accounts for 2% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are Municipal and Industrial (59% of the region’s overall demand), Thermoelectric Power (13%), and Livestock (12%).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 42% of the Grand Region’s demand. The region is supplied by the Grand River and its tributaries. The river and creeks in the region can have periods of low flow due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Fort Gibson, Hudson (Markham Ferry), and Grand lakes were built on the Grand River for flood control and hydropower purposes. No information is available on the amount of water supply or yield of these reservoirs; therefore, the projected shortages do not account for the use of reservoir storage in the basin. Lake Spavinaw and Lake Eucha have been constructed on Spavinaw Creek to provide public water supply and recreation benefits to the City of Tulsa.
Relative to other regions in the state, surface water quality in the region is considered poor to fair. Multiple creeks and major reservoirs are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
The Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) is responsible for administering water resources in the Grand Watershed Planning Region. Therefore, the OWRB does not issue stream water permits in the region. Instead of actual appropriation of waters, GRDA generally enters into contracts for the use of surface water resources within its jurisdiction.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 2% of the demand in the region. Almost all the use of alluvial groundwater is for domestic purposes, which does not require permits and may be supplied from minor alluvial aquifers. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these minor aquifers have a moderate probability of occurring throughout the year. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer. Site-specific information on these aquifers should be considered before long-term or large-scale use.
Grand Regional Summary
Synopsis
The Grand Region relies primarily on bedrock groundwater and surface water supplies (including reservoirs).
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to meet future demand.
By 2020, surface water supplies will be insufficient to meet demand in Basin 80 without use of the basin’s reservoirs.
By 2020, alluvial groundwater supplies from minor aquifers will be insufficient to meet demand in Basin 80.
No bedrock groundwater storage depletions are expected in the region.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that surface water gaps and groundwater depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps.
Use of additional groundwater supplies and/or developing small reservoirs or using existing reservoirs could mitigate gaps without having major impacts to groundwater storage.
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
Grand Region Demand Summary
Current Water Demand:
37,300 acre-feet/year (2% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Municipal & Industrial (59% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
42% SW
2% Alluvial GW
56% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
57,550 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
20,250 acre-feet/year (54%)Grand Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Limitations
Grand Region
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues in the basin.
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 56% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Roubidoux major aquifer and Boone minor aquifer. Both aquifers have over 20 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are not expected in the Grand Region.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues in the basin.
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Grand Region
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Bedrock groundwater, surface water supplies, and reservoirs are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Grand Region. Without use of the basin’s substantial reservoir storage, Basin 80 would be projected to have surface water supply shortages (gaps). Alluvial groundwater storage depletions are also projected in Basin 80 in the future. Therefore, additional long-term water supplies should still be considered for both surface water and groundwater users. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are not expected in the Grand Region. The development of bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short- to long-term water supply option.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities, primarily increased conservation by public water suppliers and increased crop irrigation efficiency, could reduce gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Further reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops, such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to the relatively low probability of gaps and storage depletions, temporary drought management measures may also be an effective water supply option.
The GRDA should be consulted for the feasibility of using existing storage or developing additional reservoir storage in the basin.
The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied by increased use of bedrock groundwater aquifers. There is expected to be sufficient recharge on an annual basis to meet the entire demand of the basins; however, localized storage depletions may occur.
Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Grand Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 5
6 Grand Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been almost half of the supply used to meet demand in the Grand Region. The region’s major stream is the Grand (or Neosho) River. This region is unique in that it is the only area in the state where the OWRB does not have jurisdiction for surface water allocation. The GRDA was established by the State Legislature in 1935 with authority to control, store and preserve the river and to use, distribute and sell the waters of the Grand River and its tributaries to the point of confluence with Fort Gibson Dam, but has no jurisdiction below the dam. The GRDA is self-sustaining with revenue derived from the sale of power and water. The Grand River in this region generally experiences abundant streamflows, with intermittent low-flow conditions and periodic flooding events. The Grand River flows from Kansas into Oklahoma in the northeast corner of the state and then through the center of the Grand Region. Major tributaries in the Grand Region include Pryor Creek (40 miles long) and Big Cabin Creek (40 miles). The Grand River and tributaries are located in Basins 80 and 81, which comprise the entire Grand Region.
Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest are Fort Gibson, Hudson (Markham Ferry), and Grand, all located on the Grand River. Fort Gibson was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1953. Grand and Hudson (Markham Ferry) were completed in 1941 and 1964, respectively, by GRDA. All three reservoirs were built for the purposes of flood control and hydropower generation; while the Corps of Engineers operates the flood control storage, GRDA controls the hydropower and other operations.
Two major municipal lakes in this region are Spavinaw and Eucha, constructed on Spavinaw Creek in 1924 and 1952, respectively, as sources of water supply and recreation for the City of Tulsa. Spavinaw Lake has little dependable yield of its own, acting primarily as terminal storage for releases from Lake Eucha. The lakes have a combined dependable yield of 84,000 AFY. There are other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agricultural water supply, and recreation.
As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought.
Reservoirs
Grand Region
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/ Operator
Year Built
Purpose1
Normal Pool Storage
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted2
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Eucha2
80
City of Tulsa
1952
WS, R
79,570
110,2002
84,0002
0
0
0
0
181,000
0
Fort Gibson
80
USACE
1953
FC, HP
365,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Known Yield
Grand
81
Grand River Dam Authority3
1940
FC, HP, WS, R
1,515,414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Dependable Yield4
Hudson (Markham Ferry)
80
Grand River Dam Authority3
1964
FC, HP, WS, R
200,185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Dependable Yield4
Spavinaw2
80
City of Tulsa
1924
WS, R, FW
30,590
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
W.R. Holway5
80
Grand River Dam Authority3
1968
WS, HP, R
50,372
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
2 These figures are combined for both Spavinaw and Eucha lakes.
3 The Grand River Dam Authority is the state agency responsible for controlling, storing, and distributing waters of the Grand River and its tributaries.
4 All available water is claimed by hydropower. Although there is no Water Supply (WS) use designated for Grand or Hudson Lake existing WS contracts are in place. GRDA has the right to request an exception to its FERC mandated rule curve (water levels) to honor its current WS contracts.
5 W.R. Holway is pumped storage for Lake Hudson and does not have independent inflow or yield.
No known information is annotated as “---”Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 7
Surface Water Resources
Grand Region
Major reservoirs in the Grand Region include Fort Gibson, Grand, W.R. Holway, Eucha, Hudson (Markham Ferry), and Spavinaw. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.8 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Grand Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
80
81
AFY
Average Annual Flow
3,678,800
2,639,200
Minimum Annual Flow
445,300
385,300
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
Grand Region
Surface water sources supply nearly half of the demand in the Grand Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows. Reservoirs may reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 9
Groundwater Resources
Grand Region
Aquifer
Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arkansas River
Alluvial
Major
<1%
5.0
0
7,000
temporary 2.0
12,700
Boone
Bedrock
Minor
67%
10.5
11,400
21,839,000
temporary 2.0
2,502,500
Cherokee Group
Bedrock
Minor
3%
3.0
200
94,000
temporary 2.0
101,600
Middle Neosho River
Alluvial
Minor
1%
4.2
0
30,000
temporary 2.0
25,600
Northeastern Oklahoma Pennsylvanian
Bedrock
Minor
44%
2.1
500
1,900,000
temporary 2.0
1,650,900
Northern Neosho River
Alluvial
Minor
2%
4.2
0
71,000
temporary 2.0
76,800
Roubidoux
Bedrock
Major
85%
2.5
17,200
23,751,000
temporary 2.0
3,192,200
Southern Neosho River
Alluvial
Minor
1%
4.2
0
51,000
temporary 2.0
51,200
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
0
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
0
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.to 100 feet in depth with saturated thickness averaging 25 to 75 feet. The formation consists of clays, sand, silt and gravels. Hardness is the major water quality problem and TDS values are usually less than 500 mg/L. The water is generally suitable for most Municipal and Industrial uses, although heavy pumping can cause chloride intrusion into the formation. The Arkansas River alluvium and terrace deposit underlies a small portion of Basin 80.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the Boone, Cherokee Group, and Northeastern Oklahoma Pennsylvanian aquifers. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Middle Neosho River, Northern Neosho River, and Southern Neosho River. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm per well. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but tends to have insufficient yields for large volume users.
Groundwater Resources
The Roubidoux major bedrock aquifer is present in the Grand Watershed Planning Region, underlying all but the westernmost portion of the region. The Arkansas River is the only major alluvial aquifer located in the region.
The Roubidoux aquifer consists primarily of dolomite with some interbedded sandstone. The aquifer thickness ranges from zero to greater than 2,000 feet, with average thickness estimated at 1,000 feet. Well yields vary from less than 25 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 1,000 gpm, with shallower well yields ranging from less than 10 gpm to more than 300 gpm. The chemical quality of the water from the Roubidoux is suitable for most purposes, but in some areas concentrations of chloride and naturally occurring radioactivity
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.may exceed drinking water standards. Dissolved solids concentrations range from less than 200 mg/L in the eastern portion of the aquifer to greater than 1,000 mg/L in the western and southern portions. Sodium chloride (salt) water is present along the western and southern edges of the aquifer and at certain depths throughout the aquifer, making the water unsuitable for most uses. Water in other areas is suitable for most purposes. Contaminated water from the abandoned zinc and lead mines in Basin 81 has the potential to degrade the quality of the Roubidoux water in the vicinity of Miami and Picher. The Roubidoux bedrock aquifer underlies all of Basin 81 and much of Basin 80.
Wells in the Arkansas River alluvium deposits range from 200 to 500 gpm while wells in the terrace deposits range from 100 to 200 gpm. Formation deposits are commonly 50
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Groundwater Resources
Grand Region
The only major bedrock aquifer in the Grand Region is the Roubidoux. The only major alluvial aquifer in the region is the Arkansas River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Groundwater Permit Availability
Grand Region
Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Grand Region
Surface water permit availability was not analyzed for GRDA’s area of jurisdiction, which includes the entire Grand Region (Basins 80 and 81).
Surface Water Permit Availability
Grand Region
NOT EVALUATED
Permit Availability
For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law.
Surface water permit availability was not analyzed for GRDA’s area of responsibility, which includes the entire Grand Region (Basins 80 and 81). For all aquifers in the Grand Region, equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined; therefore, temporary permits are granted at 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Grand Region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the Grand Watershed Planning Region is exemplified by the Grand (Neosho) River and its tributaries, and numerous minor and major water supply/flood control reservoirs. It is contained nearly equally in two adjacent ecoregions, the Central Irregular Plains (CIP) in the west and the Ozark Highlands in the east. A small portion of the Boston Mountains adjoins along the southern tip of the region.
The Osage Cuestas cover nearly a third of the region’s western geographical area and is drained by the Middle to Lower Neosho River and tributaries, including Big Cabin and Pryor Creeks. The area is an irregular plain, underlain by sandstone, shale, and limestone. It is dominated by rangeland and some cropland, interspersed with native tall grass prairies and extensive, but disconnected oak-hickory forest. Typically, turbid and deep, streams meander in broad, low gradient valleys with incised banks. Habitat can be good, but in many areas is choked by mud/silt. The Neosho River intersects the area at the confluence of Big Cabin Creek, below Grand Lake. Also, a majority of the Hudson (Markham Ferry) and Fort Gibson Lake drainages are contained within the area. Salinity is moderate with mean conductivity ranging from 270 μS/cm (Neosho) to 530 μS/cm (Big Cabin). Reservoir salinity ranges from than 200 μS/cm to greater than 300 μS/cm. Streams are eutrophic, and total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) values are moderate, with TP ranging from 0.18 (Pryor) to 0.30 ppm (Neosho) and TN from 0.89 (Pryor) to 1.79 ppm (Big Cabin). Reservoirs are phosphorus-limited, and Fort Gibson is eutrophic, while Hudson (Markham Ferry) is hyper-eutrophic. In streams, water clarity is good on the Neosho (turbidity = 15 NTU) to fair (Big Cabin = 30 NTU) to poor (Pryor = 75 NTU). Lake clarity is average to good, with average Secchi depths of 65 (Hudson) to 80 cm (Fort Gibson). Ecological diversity varies throughout depending on habitat degradation and sedimentation and is typically lower than ecoregions to the east but higher than to the west.
The planning region is inundated in the north-central by the Cherokee Plains of the CIP. The area is much flatter than the Osage Cuestas and underlain mostly by poorly draining clay soils and hardpan. It is dominated by cropland, with interspersed native tall grass prairie and sparse oak-hickory stands. In the northern part of the ecoregion, the Tar Creek superfund site is located in the Miami area. Streams are diverse through the ecoregion. They are wider and shallower and sand/clay dominated with some cobble/gravel. The area is typified by the upper Neosho River, and tributaries such as Tar Creek. Salinity is moderate with a typical conductivity mean of 358 μS/cm on the Neosho. Streams are typically eutrophic/hyper-eutrophic. The TP and TN means on the Neosho are 0.17-0.21 and 1.30-1.38 ppm, respectively. Stream water clarity is fair to poor, with turbidity means ranging from 37-52 NTU. Ecological diversity is average and impacted by poor habitat, sedimentation, and toxicity related to mine tailings.
The Ozark Highlands covers the eastern two-thirds of the area and is represented by two intermingled ecoregions—the Springfield Plateau (Plateau) and the Dissected Springfield Plateau-Elk River Hills (Dissected-Elk Hills). The Ozarks are comprised of a dissected plateau underlain by flat, cherty limestone, shale, and dolomite, and intersected by numerous level valleys. With much greater relief than the plains ecoregions to the west, it is much less rugged than the Boston and Ouachita Mountains to the south. Sub-surface flow is karst and
Ecoregions
Grand Region
The Grand Planning Region is dominated by the Ozark Highlands to the east and the Central Irregular Plains to the west. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices and is generally good to excellent depending on drainage and location.
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Grand Region
numerous springs feed typically perennials streams. Dense oak-hickory-pine forests cover uplands, while native grasslands, hay fields, and pasture land are common in the low-lying valleys. Poultry feeding operations and intense sub-urbanization have become more prevalent and have negatively affected water quality. Increasing bank erosion has increased gravel loads to streams and created braided systems, with unstable pool habitats and extensive sub-surface flow. Despite extensive riparian disturbance, habitat degradation, and increasing nutrient loads, ecological diversity remains high, with several species of fish distinctive to the Ozarks in Oklahoma, including the shadow bass and northern hogsucker. The main differences between the two ecoregions are greater forest density, more intense relief and dissection, and narrower valleys in the Dissected-Elk Hills. Representative Plateau streams include the middle Honey Creek, Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers. Grand and Hudson Lakes are representative Plateau lakes. Spring Creek exemplifies the Dissected-Elk Hills, as well as Eucha and Spavinaw Lakes and W.R. Holway Reservoir. Salinity is moderate in the Plateau with mean conductivity ranging from 200 (Spring River) to 545 μS/cm (Honey Creek), while lower in the Dissected-Elk Hills (Spring Creek = 154 μS/cm). Lakes typically range from 170 to nearly 400 μS/cm. In streams, nutrient concentrations range from lows of TP = 0.02 and TN = 0.63 ppm at Spring Creek, to highs of 0.21 (Spring River TP) and 2.86 ppm (Honey Creek TN). Trophic status in streams varies from oligotrophic (Spring and Honey Creeks) to mesotrophic (Neosho and Elk Rivers) to eutrophic (Spring River). Lakes are typically phosphorus limited and on the high end of mesotrophic to nearly hyper-eutrophic. Stream
BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) has begun a demonstration and education project on the Grand Lake watershed focused on educating citizens about reducing nonpoint source runoff. The OCC has also begun a watershed implementation project on Honey Creek as well as Spavinaw/Beaty Creek. These projects are intended to reduce the amount of bacteria, phosphorus, and sediment entering the streams and lake. These projects have indicated that this region could benefit from additional nonpoint source restoration programs. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed a TMDL study on Lytle Creek.
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics.
The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur.
The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. 14 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial
Use for Agriculture
Grand Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Grand Region
clarity ranges from good (Spring River = 18 NTU) to excellent, with turbidity means less than 3 at Elk River and Spring and Honey Creeks. Lake clarity is excellent at many lakes, with mean Secchi depths from 100 (Spavinaw) to 160 cm (Holway). Grand Secchi depths vary from excellent (110 cm)
Tar Creek Superfund Site
The Tar Creek Superfund Site is a 40-square mile former lead and zinc mining area. Located in northeastern Oklahoma, the site is part of a larger area known as the Tri-State Mining District. This 2,500-square-mile District in parts of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma once ranked as one of the world’s largest producers of lead and zinc. The Tar Creek site includes the five towns of Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, Commerce, and North Miami, as well as other areas within Ottawa County. A significant amount of land at the site is allotted Indian Land.
Underground mining for lead and zinc by the room-and-pillar method began in 1891 and lasted through early 1970. As water filled the mines, the native sulfide minerals dissolved creating acid mine water. Acid mine drainage containing high concentrations of heavy metals began discharging into Tar Creek in 1979 from natural springs, boreholes, and open mine shafts. It is estimated that seventy six thousand (76,000) acre-feet of shallow ground water is contaminated, approximately 75 million tons of mining waste piles (known as “chat”) remain on the surface of the ground, and flotation ponds (wet or dry ponds containing mine tailings) cover approximately 800 acres. The chat contains heavy metal pollutants, such as lead, cadmium, and zinc.
The principal groundwater-bearing units within the Site are the Mississippian Boone Formation and the Cambro-Ordovician Roubidoux Formation. The headwaters of Tar Creek are located in Cherokee County, Kansas; the creek flows southward through the Site and into the Grand River. Lytle Creek is a major tributary of Tar Creek. The headwaters of Beaver Creek are located north of Quapaw; the creek flows through the Quapaw powwow grounds and into the Spring River. Tar Creek and Beaver Creek are impacted by contaminated mine drainage, and the entire site is located within the watershed of Grand Lake. Water impairments include surface water degradation by the discharge of acid mine water, and the threat of contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer by downward migration of acid mine water from the overlying Boone aquifer through abandoned wells connecting the two. near the dam to average (35 cm) on the upper end.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed, and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources. The Grand region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Northern, Middle, and Lower Neosho River alluvial aquifers yield water that is generally hard, typically of a sodium/calcium bicarbonate Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 15
Water Quality Impairments
Grand Region
Regional water quality impairments
based on the 2008 Integrated Water
Quality Assessment Report. Many
surface waters in this region have
impacts from eutrophication, particularly
in water supply reservoirs.
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired
when its quality does not meet the
standards prescribed for its beneficial
uses. For example, impairment of the
Public and Private Water Supply beneficial
use means the use of the waterbody
as a drinking water supply is hindered.
Impairment of the Agricultural use means
the use of the waterbody for livestock
watering, irrigation or other agricultural
uses is hindered. Impairments can exist
for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife
Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program
(BUMP), established in 1998 to document
and quantify impairments of assigned
beneficial uses of the state’s lakes
and streams, provides information for
supporting and updating the OWQS and
prioritizing pollution control programs. A set
of rules known as “use support assessment
protocols” is also used to determine
whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are
being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after
impairments have been identified, a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is
conducted to establish the sources of
impairments—whether from point sources
(discharges) or non-point sources (runoff).
The study will then determine the amount
of reduction necessary to meet the
applicable water quality standards in that
waterbody and allocate loads among the
various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s
water quality conditions, see the most
recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP
Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated
Water Quality Assessment Report, a
comprehensive assessment of water quality
in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required
by the federal Clean Water Act and
developed by the ODEQ.
type, and in some areas, exceeds drinking
water standards. Alluvial aquifers are highly
vulnerable to contamination from surface
activities due to their high porosities and
permeability and shallow water tables.
However, alluvial water is generally suitable
for most purposes. The major bedrock aquifer
of the region is the Roubidoux. Part of the
Ozark aquifer, the Roubidoux underlies
nearly two-thirds of the region. Water is hard
but generally has low total mineral content.
However, in the far western portion of the
aquifer, concentrations of chloride, sulfate,
and fluoride exceed drinking water standards,
and there is naturally occurring radioactivity
in some areas. Large concentrations of gross-alpha
radioactivity and radium-226 occur
near the western edge and appear to be
correlated with chloride concentrations.
The aquifer is a confined aquifer and
is not vulnerable to contamination
from surface activities. Water
from the adjacent minor Boone
Formation is of good quality, but
due to its lithology, the aquifer
is susceptible to contamination
from surface sources. Sinkholes and
fractures provide direct conduits for
precipitation and runoff to transport
contaminants to the water table. Lead
and zinc ores were mined from the
Boone Formation in northeastern
Oklahoma, southeastern Kansas,
and southwestern Missouri from
about 1890 to 1970. Water in the
abandoned zinc and lead mines is
contaminated with acid mine water.
16 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection Areas
Grand Region
Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters.
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater. The vulnerability of groundwater basins has been assessed by the OWRB and the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer has been identified as very highly vulnerable.
Groundwater Protection Areas
Grand Region
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.18 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Grand Region
Site
Big Cabin Creek near Big Cabin
Neosho (Grand) River near Chouteau
Neosho (Grand) River near Commerce
Neosho (Grand) River near Langley
Spring River near Quapaw
Parameter
All Data Trend
(1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1944-1993, 2000-2009)1
Recent Trend (2000-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1 Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the Grand Region are:
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity and total phosphorus on Neosho River•
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity on Spring River•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Grand Region
Site
Lake Eucha
Fort Gibson Lake
Grand Lake
Spavinaw Lake
Parameter
(1995-2009)
(1991-2007)
(1995-2009)
(1996-2009)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concerns in the Grand Region are:
Significant upward trends for both chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus on Fort Gibson and Spavinaw reservoirs•
Significant upward trends for turbidity on Eucha and Spavinaw reservoirs• 20 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Grand Region
Projected water demand by sector. Municipal and Industrial is projected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for approximately 59% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Water Demand
The Grand Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 54% (20,200 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial sector.
Municipal and Industrial demand is projected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for approximately 59% of the total regional demand in 2060. Currently, 49% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 51% by bedrock groundwater.
Thermoelectric Power demands are projected to account for up approximately 13% of the 2060 demand. The Associated Electric facility, which is supplied by surface water, is the largest user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 12% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 4% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 96% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly chicken, followed distantly by cattle for cow-calf production, dairy cows, and sheep.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 10% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 3% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 97% by bedrock groundwater. The predominant irrigated crops in the Grand Region are pasture grasses.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 5% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 39% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 61% by bedrock groundwater.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, demand from this sector is supplied by bedrock groundwater.
There is no Self-Supplied Industrial demand in the region.
Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Water Demand
Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors.
Water Demand Sectors
nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector.
Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector, when available.
n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied Industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector.
n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports.
OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin.
Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the Basin Summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports.
Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Grand Region
The Grand Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 54% (20,200 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial sector.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Grand Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
2,430
6,320
22,060
70
0
1,920
4,490
37,300
2020
3,110
6,400
24,270
100
0
2,150
5,010
41,040
2030
3,780
6,480
26,560
140
0
2,360
5,590
44,920
2040
4,460
6,560
28,930
190
0
2,590
6,240
48,970
2050
4,980
6,630
31,380
240
0
2,830
6,960
53,020
2060
5,810
6,710
33,890
290
0
3,080
7,760
57,550
Total Water Demand
by Sector
Grand Region22 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
Grand Region
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.
The Grand Watershed Planning Region includes 69 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.)
In terms of 2010 population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Miami, Grove Municipal Services Authority, Vinita PWA, Pryor, and Mayes County RWD #2. These five systems provide service for approximately 40 percent of the population served by public water providers in the region.
Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.
Public Water Providers Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ADAIR
OK1021613
Mayes
107
721
796
861
936
1,011
1,086
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Ottawa
98
1,422
1,518
1,602
1,699
1,807
1,916
BERNICE
OK2002166
Delaware
70
2,606
3,004
3,357
3,754
4,152
4,594
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Craig
215
318
358
388
427
457
497
BLUE JACKET PWA
OK2001802
Craig
131
280
317
345
382
410
447
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Rogers
211
2,597
2,918
3,197
3,455
3,712
3,991
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 9
OK1021733
Cherokee
50
157
181
204
228
250
274
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Cherokee
109
3,507
4,029
4,543
5,066
5,573
6,095
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Mayes
120
1,987
2,184
2,372
2,568
2,775
2,981
COLCORD PWA
OK2002157
Delaware
82
856
981
1,106
1,231
1,374
1,517
COMMERCE
OK2005810
Ottawa
80
3,704
3,957
4,210
4,477
4,757
5,023
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Craig
128
325
360
393
430
468
507
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Craig
101
4,070
4,510
4,930
5,396
5,868
6,361
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Craig
65
95
105
115
126
137
148
CRAIG CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2001807
Craig
154
529
586
640
701
762
826
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Delaware
224
94
108
122
136
151
167
DELAWARE CO RWD # 3
OK1221615
Delaware
50
683
786
885
987
1,097
1,212
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Delaware
87
419
481
542
605
672
743
DELAWARE CO RWD #10
OK6002158
Delaware
164
1,465
1,685
1,897
2,116
2,353
2,599
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Delaware
63
879
1,011
1,138
1,270
1,412
1,560
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Delaware
55
452
520
585
653
726
802
FAIRLAND
OK2005809
Ottawa
100
1,042
1,110
1,177
1,255
1,332
1,409
GRAND LAKE PWA
OK1021691
Delaware
219
1,988
2,286
2,575
2,872
3,193
3,528
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware
214
11,517
13,242
14,909
16,634
18,493
20,429
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Mayes
232
103
113
123
133
144
155
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee
77
1,360
1,572
1,763
1,976
2,167
2,358
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig
148
309
343
374
410
446
483
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware
403
2,600
2,984
3,359
3,744
4,163
4,601
KANSAS PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2002135
Delaware
153
717
825
932
1,040
1,157
1,273
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Craig
179
4,046
4,425
4,804
5,310
5,689
6,195
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware
348
2,099
2,414
2,718
3,033
3,371
3,725
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes
186
1,284
1,424
1,547
1,671
1,811
1,952
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes
93
1,646
1,811
1,964
2,129
2,294
2,469
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Mayes
146
7,721
8,490
9,223
9,992
10,781
11,589
MAYES CO RWD # 3
OK1021640
Mayes
62
2,471
2,717
2,951
3,198
3,450
3,708
MAYES CO RWD # 4
OK3004617
Mayes
176
4,220
4,642
5,042
5,464
5,895
6,334
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes
92
3,346
3,679
3,996
4,330
4,672
5,022
MAYES CO RWD # 6
OK1021666
Mayes
124
4,303
4,732
5,140
5,569
6,009
6,45924 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Mayes
92
438
481
523
566
611
657
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Mayes
50
463
509
553
600
647
695
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Mayes
86
2,265
2,491
2,705
2,931
3,162
3,399
MIAMI
OK2005813
Ottawa
130
13,914
14,870
15,788
16,782
17,825
18,858
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Ottawa
61
445
474
503
532
570
599
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Craig
133
142
158
172
189
205
222
OAKS WATER WORKS INC
OK2002159
Delaware
78
429
496
553
620
687
753
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Mayes
135
3,900
4,289
4,659
5,048
5,447
5,855
OTTAWA CO RWD # 1
OK2005805
Ottawa
70
465
497
528
561
596
630
OTTAWA CO RWD # 2
OK2005804
Ottawa
133
711
760
806
857
910
963
OTTAWA CO RWD # 3
OK2005806
Ottawa
107
162
173
183
195
207
219
OTTAWA CO RWD # 4
OK2005801
Ottawa
112
662
708
751
799
848
897
OTTAWA CO RWD #5
OK2005840
Ottawa
153
762
814
864
919
975
1,032
OTTAWA CO RWD #6
OK2005859
Ottawa
108
407
435
462
491
522
552
OTTAWA CO RWD #7
OK2005860
Ottawa
80
508
543
576
612
650
688
PEGGS WATER COMPANY
OK1221630
Cherokee
85
2,021
2,322
2,619
2,920
3,212
3,513
PRYOR
OK3004611
Mayes
149
8,954
9,847
10,697
11,589
12,504
13,441
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Mayes
55
129
141
154
167
180
193
QUAPAW
OK2005811
Ottawa
159
1,012
1,081
1,147
1,220
1,295
1,371
QUAPAW TRIBE
OK2005812
Ottawa
77
1,933
2,064
2,190
2,326;
2,467
2,624
SALINA PWA
OK1021603
Mayes
177
1,461
1,611
1,742
1,892
2,033
2,192
SPAVINAW
OK1021616
Mayes
69
580
636
692
748
814
870
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Craig
181
11,491
12,747
13,938
15,257
16,593
17,977
WAGONER CO RWD # 1
OK1021650
Wagoner
100
414
463
503
540
576
614
WAGONER CO RWD # 2
OK1021643
Wagoner
70
2,072
2,314
2,515
2,700
2,881
3,072
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
110
3,927
4,386
4,766
5,116
5,460
5,822
WELCH PWA
OK2001801
Craig
87
1,285
1,421
1,558
1,713
1,850
2,005
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ADAIR
OK1021613
Mayes
86
95
103
112
121
130
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Ottawa
156
166
176
186
198
210
BERNICE
OK2002166
Delaware
204
236
263
294
326
360
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Craig
76
86
93
103
110
120
BLUE JACKET PWA
OK2001802
Craig
41
47
51
56
60
66
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Rogers
613
689
755
816
877
942
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 9
OK1021733
Cherokee
9
10
11
13
14
15
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Cherokee
429
493
556
620
682
746
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Mayes
266
292
317
344
371
399
COLCORD PWA
OK2002157
Delaware
79
90
102
113
126
139
COMMERCE
OK2005810
Ottawa
331
353
376
400
425
448
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Craig
47
52
56
62
67
73
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Craig
462
512
559
612
666
722
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Craig
7
8
8
9
10
11
CRAIG CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2001807
Craig
91
101
110
121
131
143
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Delaware
24
27
31
34
38
42
DELAWARE CO RWD # 3
OK1221615
Delaware
38
44
50
55
61
68
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Delaware
41
47
53
59
66
72
DELAWARE CO RWD #10
OK6002158
Delaware
269
309
349
389
432
478
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Delaware
62
71
80
90
100
110
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Delaware
28
32
36
40
45
49
FAIRLAND
OK2005809
Ottawa
117
124
132
141
149
158
GRAND LAKE PWA
OK1021691
Delaware
488
561
632
705
783
865
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware
2,756
3,169
3,568
3,981
4,425
4,889
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Mayes
27
29
32
35
37
40
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee
118
136
152
171
187
204
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig
51
57
62
68
74
80
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware
1,173
1,347
1,516
1,689
1,879
2,077
KANSAS PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2002135
Delaware
123
142
160
179
199
219
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Craig
812
888
965
1,066
1,142
1,244
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware
818
941
1,060
1,182
1,314
1,452
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes
267
297
322
348
377
407
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes
171
188
204
221
238
256
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Mayes
1,264
1,390
1,510
1,636
1,765
1,897
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Projections of Retail Water Demand
Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demand includes water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demand includes customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demand doesn’t include wholesale water to other providers.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations.
The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses.
For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems.26 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
MAYES CO RWD # 3
OK1021640
Mayes
170
187
204
221
238
256
MAYES CO RWD # 4
OK3004617
Mayes
831
914
993
1,076
1,161
1,248
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes
346
380
413
448
483
519
MAYES CO RWD # 6
OK1021666
Mayes
596
656
712
772
832
895
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Mayes
45
50
54
58
63
68
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Mayes
26
28
31
33
36
39
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Mayes
219
241
262
284
306
329
MIAMI
OK2005813
Ottawa
2,026
2,165
2,299
2,444
2,596
2,746
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Ottawa
30
32
34
36
39
41
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Craig
21
23
26
28
31
33
OAKS WATER WORKS INC
OK2002159
Delaware
37
43
48
54
60
66
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Mayes
592
651
707
766
827
889
OTTAWA CO RWD # 1
OK2005805
Ottawa
36
39
41
44
47
49
OTTAWA CO RWD # 2
OK2005804
Ottawa
106
113
120
128
136
144
OTTAWA CO RWD # 3
OK2005806
Ottawa
19
21
22
23
25
26
OTTAWA CO RWD # 4
OK2005801
Ottawa
83
89
94
100
106
113
OTTAWA CO RWD #5
OK2005840
Ottawa
131
139
148
157
167
177
OTTAWA CO RWD #6
OK2005859
Ottawa
49
53
56
59
63
67
OTTAWA CO RWD #7
OK2005860
Ottawa
46
49
52
55
58
62
PEGGS WATER COMPANY
OK1221630
Cherokee
192
220
248
277
305
333
PRYOR
OK3004611
Mayes
1,499
1,648
1,790
1,940
2,093
2,250
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Mayes
8
9
9
10
11
12
QUAPAW
OK2005811
Ottawa
180
193
204
217
231
244
QUAPAW TRIBE
OK2005812
Ottawa
167
178
189
201
213
227
SALINA PWA
OK1021603
Mayes
290
320
346
376
404
435
SPAVINAW
OK1021616
Mayes
44
49
53
57
62
67
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Craig
2,335
2,590
2,832
3,101
3,372
3,653
WAGONER CO RWD # 1
OK1021650
Wagoner
46
52
56
60
65
69
WAGONER CO RWD # 2
OK1021643
Wagoner
162
181
197
212
226
241
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
483
539
586
629
671
716
WELCH PWA
OK2001801
Craig
126
139
152
167
181
196
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demand does not include wholesaled water.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or
Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Bernice
E
T
Bernice
E
T
BERNICE
OK2002166
Afton PWA
E
T
Afton PWA
E
T
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Vinita PWA
O
T
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Consolidated RWD #1 Nowata & Rogers Co
Mayes Co RWD #5
O
E
T
T
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Hulbert PWA
E
T
Tahlequah PWA
O
T
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
O
T
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Vinita PWA
T
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Vinita PWA
Ketchum PWA
O
O
T
T
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Ironside Water District Inc
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Jay
O
T
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Ketchum PWA
O
T
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Grove Municipal Services Auth
O
T
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Grove Municipal Services Auth
O
T
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware Co RWD #9
Delaware Co RWD #6
O
O
T
T
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Pryor
O
T
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee Co RWD #11
E
T
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig Co RWD #4
Vinita PWA
T
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware Co RWD #1
O
T
Tulsa (Lake Eucha)
O
R
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Delaware Co RWD 7
Craig County RWD 2
O
O
T
T
Langley
E
T
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware County RWD #7
Craig Co RWD #2
O
O
T
T
Langley
E
T
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes Co RWD #8
Ketchum PWA Delaware Co System
Ketchum PWA
O
E
E
T
T
T
Ketchum PWA
E
T
Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demand. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems.
Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers. 28 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or
Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes Co RWD #9
O
T
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Inola Water Works Inc
Rogers Co RWD #6
O
T
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
T
MAYES CO RWD #4
OK3004617
Rogers Co RWD #7
Mayes Co RWD #5
O
O
T
T
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
O
T
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes County RWD #4
Pryor West RWD #4
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Chelsea Economic Dev. Auth
O
O
E
T
T
T
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Langley
Mayes Co RWD #6
O
T
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Locust Grove
O
T
MIAMI
OK2005813
North Miami
T
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Miami
T
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Vinita PWA
T
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Broken Arrow WTP
Pryor
Chouteau
Mayes Co RWD #2
Mayes Co RWD #4
Mayes Co RWD #5
Mayes Co RWD #7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
PRYOR
OK3004611
Highway 69 Water District
Pryor East RWD #1
O
O
T
T
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
O
T
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Pryor
O
T
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Big Cabin PWA
Craig Co RWD #2
Craig Co RWD #1
Ironside Water District Inc
North Vinita Water Co-op Inc
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 2)
Grand RegionGrand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
ADAIR
OK1021613
Mayes
---
---
---
---
ADAIR CO RWS & SWMD #6
OK2000145
Adair
---
---
---
---
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Ottawa
---
---
---
---
BERNICE
OK2002166
Delaware
146
0%
0%
100%
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Craig
---
---
---
---
BLUE JACKET PWA
OK2001802
Craig
70
0%
0%
100%
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Rogers
1094
100%
0%
0%
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 2 (KEYS)
OK1021711
Cherokee
329
100%
0%
0%
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 9
OK1021733
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Mayes
---
---
---
---
COLCORD PWA
OK2002157
Delaware
320
0%
0%
100%
COMMERCE
OK2005810
Ottawa
1170
---
---
100
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Craig
---
---
---
---
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Craig
140
0%
0%
100%
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Craig
---
---
---
---
CRAIG CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2001807
Craig
620
0%
0%
100%
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Delaware
200
0%
0%
100%
DELAWARE CO RWD # 3
OK1221615
Delaware
---
---
---
---
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Delaware
---
---
---
---
DELAWARE CO RWD #10
OK6002158
Delaware
169
---
---
100
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Delaware
---
---
---
---
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Delaware
---
---
---
---
FAIRLAND
OK2005809
Ottawa
81
0%
0%
100%
GRAND LAKE PWA
OK1021691
Delaware
---
---
---
---
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware
---
---
---
---
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Mayes
---
---
---
---
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig
---
---
---
---
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware
---
---
---
---
KANSAS PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2002135
Delaware
179
0%
0%
100%
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Craig
---
---
---
---
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware
---
---
---
---
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes
---
---
---
---
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Mayes
---
---
---
---
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.30 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
MAYES CO RWD # 3
OK1021640
Mayes
262
---
---
100
MAYES CO RWD # 4
OK3004617
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 6
OK1021666
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MIAMI
OK2005813
Ottawa
5,336.4
0%
0%
100%
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Ottawa
---
---
---
---
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Craig
---
---
---
---
OAKS WATER WORKS INC
OK2002159
Delaware
---
---
---
---
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Mayes
---
---
---
---
OTTAWA CO RWD # 1
OK2005805
Ottawa
322
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD # 2
OK2005804
Ottawa
502
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD # 3
OK2005806
Ottawa
322
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD # 4
OK2005801
Ottawa
769.8
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD #5
OK2005840
Ottawa
50
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD #6
OK2005859
Ottawa
640
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD #7
OK2005860
Ottawa
320
0%
0%
100%
PEGGS WATER COMPANY
OK1221630
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
PRYOR
OK3004611
Mayes
2,382
100%
0%
0%
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Mayes
---
---
---
---
QUAPAW
OK2005811
Ottawa
2,368
0%
0%
100%
QUAPAW TRIBE
OK2005812
Ottawa
1,225
---
---
100%
SALINA PWA
OK1021603
Mayes
---
---
---
---
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Craig
3,620
100%
0%
0%
SPAVINAW
OK1021616
Mayes
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 1
OK1021650
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 2
OK1021643
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WELCH PWA
OK2001801
Craig
78
0%
0%
100%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemGrand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Grand Region
City of Adair (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Adair City Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Complete project to connect and purchase water from Mayes County RWD #6.
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add and a replace portion of distribution system lines.
Adair County RWS & SWMD #6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: possible water Flint Ridge RWD.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Afton PWA (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Water Treatment Plant upgrades.
Town of Bernice (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Emergency source: Afton
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Big Cabin PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Vinita Utilities Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: Connect to Craig County RWD #2 to obtain water with Vinita.
Blue Jacket (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace the rest of the asbestos cement water lines in the distribution system. Move the chlorine station.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Chelsea Economic Dev. Auth (Rogers County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oologah Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Cherokee County RWD 2 (Keys)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Tenkiller
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: Possible water purchase from Tahlequah.
Cherokee County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fort Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: connect to Cherokee County RWD 11.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Cherokee County RWD 11
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Double Spring Creek
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Fourteen Mile Creek.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Chouteau (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add and replace distribution system lines.
Colcord PWA (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Rehabilitate two filters and replace water lines within the water treatment plant.
City of Commerce (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Craig County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Vinita Utilities Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Loop distribution system lines. Relocate water lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Craig County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Vinita Utilities Authority, Ketchum PWA
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: increase supplies from Ketchum PWA.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new 30 mile pipeline from Ketchum.
Craig County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ironside Water District
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Craig County RWS & SWMD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Refurbish wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe.
Delaware County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Jay
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish standpipe; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Delaware County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Provider Supply Plans
In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans.
In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems.
Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems. 32 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Grand Region
Delaware County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ketchum PWA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Delaware County RWD 10
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Repair leaks in distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe; new WTP.
Delaware County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Delaware County RWSG & SW Mgmt Dist. 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Grove
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Fairland (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater; Ottawa County RWD 6
Emergency source: Ottawa County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells; purchase water from Ottawa County RWD 6
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Grand Lake PWA (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater; Drill new wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add storage and standpipe; add distribution system lines.
Grove Municipal Serv. Auth. (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Expand surface WTP; add storage.
Highway 69 Water District (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: City of Pryor
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Hulbert PWA (Cherokee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: 14 Mile Creek
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New booster pump for existing standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new WTP.
Ironside Water District Inc. (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Vinita Utilities Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of main and distribution lines; add chlorine booster station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new interconnects between Big Cabin and Craig County RWD 2.
Jay (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lake Eucha
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tanks.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: rehab 2 clarifiers at existing surface WTP; new WTP.
Kansas Public Works Auth. (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: repair fire hydrants; rehabilitate 2 filters at WTP.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add main line to connect to Flint Ridge RWD for emergency connection.
Ketchum PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of water main lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New WTP to replace 2 old WTPs.
Ketchum PWA Delaware County System
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New WTP to replace 2 old WTPs.
Town of Langley (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Locust Grove (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add clarifier to WTP; add carbon feed system; add discharge to lake.
Mayes County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Mayes County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines
Mayes County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Mayes County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority, Mayes County RWD 4
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: upgrade distribution system pumps and lines.
Mayes County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lake Hudson (Markham Ferry)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; increase WTP capacity.
Mayes County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Mayes County RWD 8
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mayes County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Mayes County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: W.R. Holway Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Expanding water treatment plant and rehabilitating two water towers.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
City of Miami (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: add pressure pumps.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
City of Pryor (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Auth.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pryor East RWD 1 (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Jay
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Quapaw (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Quapaw Tribe (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Salina PWA (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; upgrades to WTP.
Town of Spavinaw (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Spavinaw Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Vinita PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: None identified.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Grand Region
North Miami (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Miami
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill another additional well.
North Vinita Water Coop Inc. (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Vinita
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Oaks Water Works Inc. (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater.
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
OK Ordnance Works Auth. (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand River
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater, Wyandotte Nation
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Ottawa County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Ottawa County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Ottawa County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater, City of Commerce
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Peggs Water Company (Cherokee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Spring Creek
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water tanks; replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add filter to WTP.
Wagoner County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fort Gibson Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new WTP.
Welch PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.34 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water.
Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region.
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Grand Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$277
$450
$109
$836
Medium
$237
$562
$383
$1,182
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$26
$110
$136
Total
$514
$1,038
$602
$2,154
1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 or fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category refers specifically to rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $2.2 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure needs of the Grand • Region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur between 2021 and 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 90 percent of the providers’ estimated • infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects.
Medium-sized providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately six percent of the total costs.• Grand Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 35
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan36 Grand Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur.
Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%.
The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report.
Primary Options
To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements.
Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of Demand Management for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report.
Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin.
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Reservoir Use
“Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs.
The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands.
Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir site(s) unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand.
Increasing Reliance on
Surface Water
“Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion.
Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source.
Increasing Reliance on
Groundwater
“Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers.
Expanded Options
In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website.
Expanded Conservation Measures
Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the report Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects.
Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodolo

Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Grand
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardOklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
Grand Watershed Planning RegionStatewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Contents
Introduction 1
Regional Overview 1
Regional Summary . 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations . 2
Water Supply Options 4
Water Supply 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers 22
OCWP Provider Survey 31
Water Supply Options . 36
Limitations Analysis . 36
Primary Options 36
Demand Management 36
Out-of-Basin Supplies 36
Reservoir Use . 36
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 37
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 37
Expanded Options . 37
Expanded Conservation Measures . 37
Artificial Aquifer Recharge . 37
Marginal Quality Water Sources 37
Potential Reservoir Development . 37
Basin Data & Analysis 41
Basin 80 41
Basin 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Glossary 60
Grand Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Regional Overview
The Grand Watershed Planning Region includes two basins (numbered 80 and 81 for reference). The region encompasses 2,694 square miles in northeast Oklahoma, spanning all of Ottawa County and parts of Craig, Rogers, Mayes, Delaware, Wagoner, and Cherokee Counties.
The region is divided between the Central Lowland physiography province in the west and the Ozark Plateaus in the south and east. Encompassing some of the most scenic areas of the state, the region’s terrain includes forested mountains, rolling plains, and rich river basins. Tall grass prairies in the east with a mix of rangeland and cropland give way to oak-hickory and oak-hickory-pine forests with livestock farming and logging land uses.
The region has a generally mild climate with annual mean temperatures varying from 59°F to 61°F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 42 inches in the northwest to 45 inches in the southeast. Annual evaporation is around 46 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include Miami (2010 population 13,573), Pryor Creek (9,239), and Vinita (6,208). The greatest demand is from Municipal and Industrial water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 57,600 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 20,000 AFY (54%) from 2010.
The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals:
Provide safe and dependable water supply for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations.
Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the Grand Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O model, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demand to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demand, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the Water Supply Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.2 Grand Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Grand Region accounts for 2% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sectors are Municipal and Industrial (59% of the region’s overall demand), Thermoelectric Power (13%), and Livestock (12%).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 42% of the Grand Region’s demand. The region is supplied by the Grand River and its tributaries. The river and creeks in the region can have periods of low flow due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Fort Gibson, Hudson (Markham Ferry), and Grand lakes were built on the Grand River for flood control and hydropower purposes. No information is available on the amount of water supply or yield of these reservoirs; therefore, the projected shortages do not account for the use of reservoir storage in the basin. Lake Spavinaw and Lake Eucha have been constructed on Spavinaw Creek to provide public water supply and recreation benefits to the City of Tulsa.
Relative to other regions in the state, surface water quality in the region is considered poor to fair. Multiple creeks and major reservoirs are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
The Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) is responsible for administering water resources in the Grand Watershed Planning Region. Therefore, the OWRB does not issue stream water permits in the region. Instead of actual appropriation of waters, GRDA generally enters into contracts for the use of surface water resources within its jurisdiction.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 2% of the demand in the region. Almost all the use of alluvial groundwater is for domestic purposes, which does not require permits and may be supplied from minor alluvial aquifers. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these minor aquifers have a moderate probability of occurring throughout the year. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer. Site-specific information on these aquifers should be considered before long-term or large-scale use.
Grand Regional Summary
Synopsis
The Grand Region relies primarily on bedrock groundwater and surface water supplies (including reservoirs).
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to meet future demand.
By 2020, surface water supplies will be insufficient to meet demand in Basin 80 without use of the basin’s reservoirs.
By 2020, alluvial groundwater supplies from minor aquifers will be insufficient to meet demand in Basin 80.
No bedrock groundwater storage depletions are expected in the region.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that surface water gaps and groundwater depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps.
Use of additional groundwater supplies and/or developing small reservoirs or using existing reservoirs could mitigate gaps without having major impacts to groundwater storage.
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
Grand Region Demand Summary
Current Water Demand:
37,300 acre-feet/year (2% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Municipal & Industrial (59% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
42% SW
2% Alluvial GW
56% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
57,550 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
20,250 acre-feet/year (54%)Grand Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Limitations
Grand Region
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues in the basin.
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 56% of the demand in the region. Currently permitted and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Roubidoux major aquifer and Boone minor aquifer. Both aquifers have over 20 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are not expected in the Grand Region.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues in the basin.
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
Grand Region
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Bedrock groundwater, surface water supplies, and reservoirs are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the Grand Region. Without use of the basin’s substantial reservoir storage, Basin 80 would be projected to have surface water supply shortages (gaps). Alluvial groundwater storage depletions are also projected in Basin 80 in the future. Therefore, additional long-term water supplies should still be considered for both surface water and groundwater users. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are not expected in the Grand Region. The development of bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short- to long-term water supply option.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities, primarily increased conservation by public water suppliers and increased crop irrigation efficiency, could reduce gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions. Further reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops, such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to the relatively low probability of gaps and storage depletions, temporary drought management measures may also be an effective water supply option.
The GRDA should be consulted for the feasibility of using existing storage or developing additional reservoir storage in the basin.
The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied by increased use of bedrock groundwater aquifers. There is expected to be sufficient recharge on an annual basis to meet the entire demand of the basins; however, localized storage depletions may occur.
Effectiveness of water supply options in each basin in the Grand Region. This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 5
6 Grand Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically been almost half of the supply used to meet demand in the Grand Region. The region’s major stream is the Grand (or Neosho) River. This region is unique in that it is the only area in the state where the OWRB does not have jurisdiction for surface water allocation. The GRDA was established by the State Legislature in 1935 with authority to control, store and preserve the river and to use, distribute and sell the waters of the Grand River and its tributaries to the point of confluence with Fort Gibson Dam, but has no jurisdiction below the dam. The GRDA is self-sustaining with revenue derived from the sale of power and water. The Grand River in this region generally experiences abundant streamflows, with intermittent low-flow conditions and periodic flooding events. The Grand River flows from Kansas into Oklahoma in the northeast corner of the state and then through the center of the Grand Region. Major tributaries in the Grand Region include Pryor Creek (40 miles long) and Big Cabin Creek (40 miles). The Grand River and tributaries are located in Basins 80 and 81, which comprise the entire Grand Region.
Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. The largest are Fort Gibson, Hudson (Markham Ferry), and Grand, all located on the Grand River. Fort Gibson was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1953. Grand and Hudson (Markham Ferry) were completed in 1941 and 1964, respectively, by GRDA. All three reservoirs were built for the purposes of flood control and hydropower generation; while the Corps of Engineers operates the flood control storage, GRDA controls the hydropower and other operations.
Two major municipal lakes in this region are Spavinaw and Eucha, constructed on Spavinaw Creek in 1924 and 1952, respectively, as sources of water supply and recreation for the City of Tulsa. Spavinaw Lake has little dependable yield of its own, acting primarily as terminal storage for releases from Lake Eucha. The lakes have a combined dependable yield of 84,000 AFY. There are other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agricultural water supply, and recreation.
As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought.
Reservoirs
Grand Region
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/ Operator
Year Built
Purpose1
Normal Pool Storage
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted2
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Eucha2
80
City of Tulsa
1952
WS, R
79,570
110,2002
84,0002
0
0
0
0
181,000
0
Fort Gibson
80
USACE
1953
FC, HP
365,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Known Yield
Grand
81
Grand River Dam Authority3
1940
FC, HP, WS, R
1,515,414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Dependable Yield4
Hudson (Markham Ferry)
80
Grand River Dam Authority3
1964
FC, HP, WS, R
200,185
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Dependable Yield4
Spavinaw2
80
City of Tulsa
1924
WS, R, FW
30,590
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
W.R. Holway5
80
Grand River Dam Authority3
1968
WS, HP, R
50,372
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
2 These figures are combined for both Spavinaw and Eucha lakes.
3 The Grand River Dam Authority is the state agency responsible for controlling, storing, and distributing waters of the Grand River and its tributaries.
4 All available water is claimed by hydropower. Although there is no Water Supply (WS) use designated for Grand or Hudson Lake existing WS contracts are in place. GRDA has the right to request an exception to its FERC mandated rule curve (water levels) to honor its current WS contracts.
5 W.R. Holway is pumped storage for Lake Hudson and does not have independent inflow or yield.
No known information is annotated as “---”Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 7
Surface Water Resources
Grand Region
Major reservoirs in the Grand Region include Fort Gibson, Grand, W.R. Holway, Eucha, Hudson (Markham Ferry), and Spavinaw. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.8 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
Grand Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
80
81
AFY
Average Annual Flow
3,678,800
2,639,200
Minimum Annual Flow
445,300
385,300
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
Grand Region
Surface water sources supply nearly half of the demand in the Grand Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows. Reservoirs may reduce the impacts of drier periods on surface water users.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 9
Groundwater Resources
Grand Region
Aquifer
Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arkansas River
Alluvial
Major
<1%
5.0
0
7,000
temporary 2.0
12,700
Boone
Bedrock
Minor
67%
10.5
11,400
21,839,000
temporary 2.0
2,502,500
Cherokee Group
Bedrock
Minor
3%
3.0
200
94,000
temporary 2.0
101,600
Middle Neosho River
Alluvial
Minor
1%
4.2
0
30,000
temporary 2.0
25,600
Northeastern Oklahoma Pennsylvanian
Bedrock
Minor
44%
2.1
500
1,900,000
temporary 2.0
1,650,900
Northern Neosho River
Alluvial
Minor
2%
4.2
0
71,000
temporary 2.0
76,800
Roubidoux
Bedrock
Major
85%
2.5
17,200
23,751,000
temporary 2.0
3,192,200
Southern Neosho River
Alluvial
Minor
1%
4.2
0
51,000
temporary 2.0
51,200
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
0
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
0
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.to 100 feet in depth with saturated thickness averaging 25 to 75 feet. The formation consists of clays, sand, silt and gravels. Hardness is the major water quality problem and TDS values are usually less than 500 mg/L. The water is generally suitable for most Municipal and Industrial uses, although heavy pumping can cause chloride intrusion into the formation. The Arkansas River alluvium and terrace deposit underlies a small portion of Basin 80.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the Boone, Cherokee Group, and Northeastern Oklahoma Pennsylvanian aquifers. Minor alluvial aquifers include the Middle Neosho River, Northern Neosho River, and Southern Neosho River. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm per well. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas not served by rural water systems, but tends to have insufficient yields for large volume users.
Groundwater Resources
The Roubidoux major bedrock aquifer is present in the Grand Watershed Planning Region, underlying all but the westernmost portion of the region. The Arkansas River is the only major alluvial aquifer located in the region.
The Roubidoux aquifer consists primarily of dolomite with some interbedded sandstone. The aquifer thickness ranges from zero to greater than 2,000 feet, with average thickness estimated at 1,000 feet. Well yields vary from less than 25 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 1,000 gpm, with shallower well yields ranging from less than 10 gpm to more than 300 gpm. The chemical quality of the water from the Roubidoux is suitable for most purposes, but in some areas concentrations of chloride and naturally occurring radioactivity
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.may exceed drinking water standards. Dissolved solids concentrations range from less than 200 mg/L in the eastern portion of the aquifer to greater than 1,000 mg/L in the western and southern portions. Sodium chloride (salt) water is present along the western and southern edges of the aquifer and at certain depths throughout the aquifer, making the water unsuitable for most uses. Water in other areas is suitable for most purposes. Contaminated water from the abandoned zinc and lead mines in Basin 81 has the potential to degrade the quality of the Roubidoux water in the vicinity of Miami and Picher. The Roubidoux bedrock aquifer underlies all of Basin 81 and much of Basin 80.
Wells in the Arkansas River alluvium deposits range from 200 to 500 gpm while wells in the terrace deposits range from 100 to 200 gpm. Formation deposits are commonly 50
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Groundwater Resources
Grand Region
The only major bedrock aquifer in the Grand Region is the Roubidoux. The only major alluvial aquifer in the region is the Arkansas River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Groundwater Permit Availability
Grand Region
Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Grand Region
Surface water permit availability was not analyzed for GRDA’s area of jurisdiction, which includes the entire Grand Region (Basins 80 and 81).
Surface Water Permit Availability
Grand Region
NOT EVALUATED
Permit Availability
For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law.
Surface water permit availability was not analyzed for GRDA’s area of responsibility, which includes the entire Grand Region (Basins 80 and 81). For all aquifers in the Grand Region, equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined; therefore, temporary permits are granted at 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that the use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060 in the Grand Region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.12 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the Grand Watershed Planning Region is exemplified by the Grand (Neosho) River and its tributaries, and numerous minor and major water supply/flood control reservoirs. It is contained nearly equally in two adjacent ecoregions, the Central Irregular Plains (CIP) in the west and the Ozark Highlands in the east. A small portion of the Boston Mountains adjoins along the southern tip of the region.
The Osage Cuestas cover nearly a third of the region’s western geographical area and is drained by the Middle to Lower Neosho River and tributaries, including Big Cabin and Pryor Creeks. The area is an irregular plain, underlain by sandstone, shale, and limestone. It is dominated by rangeland and some cropland, interspersed with native tall grass prairies and extensive, but disconnected oak-hickory forest. Typically, turbid and deep, streams meander in broad, low gradient valleys with incised banks. Habitat can be good, but in many areas is choked by mud/silt. The Neosho River intersects the area at the confluence of Big Cabin Creek, below Grand Lake. Also, a majority of the Hudson (Markham Ferry) and Fort Gibson Lake drainages are contained within the area. Salinity is moderate with mean conductivity ranging from 270 μS/cm (Neosho) to 530 μS/cm (Big Cabin). Reservoir salinity ranges from than 200 μS/cm to greater than 300 μS/cm. Streams are eutrophic, and total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) values are moderate, with TP ranging from 0.18 (Pryor) to 0.30 ppm (Neosho) and TN from 0.89 (Pryor) to 1.79 ppm (Big Cabin). Reservoirs are phosphorus-limited, and Fort Gibson is eutrophic, while Hudson (Markham Ferry) is hyper-eutrophic. In streams, water clarity is good on the Neosho (turbidity = 15 NTU) to fair (Big Cabin = 30 NTU) to poor (Pryor = 75 NTU). Lake clarity is average to good, with average Secchi depths of 65 (Hudson) to 80 cm (Fort Gibson). Ecological diversity varies throughout depending on habitat degradation and sedimentation and is typically lower than ecoregions to the east but higher than to the west.
The planning region is inundated in the north-central by the Cherokee Plains of the CIP. The area is much flatter than the Osage Cuestas and underlain mostly by poorly draining clay soils and hardpan. It is dominated by cropland, with interspersed native tall grass prairie and sparse oak-hickory stands. In the northern part of the ecoregion, the Tar Creek superfund site is located in the Miami area. Streams are diverse through the ecoregion. They are wider and shallower and sand/clay dominated with some cobble/gravel. The area is typified by the upper Neosho River, and tributaries such as Tar Creek. Salinity is moderate with a typical conductivity mean of 358 μS/cm on the Neosho. Streams are typically eutrophic/hyper-eutrophic. The TP and TN means on the Neosho are 0.17-0.21 and 1.30-1.38 ppm, respectively. Stream water clarity is fair to poor, with turbidity means ranging from 37-52 NTU. Ecological diversity is average and impacted by poor habitat, sedimentation, and toxicity related to mine tailings.
The Ozark Highlands covers the eastern two-thirds of the area and is represented by two intermingled ecoregions—the Springfield Plateau (Plateau) and the Dissected Springfield Plateau-Elk River Hills (Dissected-Elk Hills). The Ozarks are comprised of a dissected plateau underlain by flat, cherty limestone, shale, and dolomite, and intersected by numerous level valleys. With much greater relief than the plains ecoregions to the west, it is much less rugged than the Boston and Ouachita Mountains to the south. Sub-surface flow is karst and
Ecoregions
Grand Region
The Grand Planning Region is dominated by the Ozark Highlands to the east and the Central Irregular Plains to the west. Water quality is highly influenced by both geology and land use practices and is generally good to excellent depending on drainage and location.
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards Implementation
Grand Region
numerous springs feed typically perennials streams. Dense oak-hickory-pine forests cover uplands, while native grasslands, hay fields, and pasture land are common in the low-lying valleys. Poultry feeding operations and intense sub-urbanization have become more prevalent and have negatively affected water quality. Increasing bank erosion has increased gravel loads to streams and created braided systems, with unstable pool habitats and extensive sub-surface flow. Despite extensive riparian disturbance, habitat degradation, and increasing nutrient loads, ecological diversity remains high, with several species of fish distinctive to the Ozarks in Oklahoma, including the shadow bass and northern hogsucker. The main differences between the two ecoregions are greater forest density, more intense relief and dissection, and narrower valleys in the Dissected-Elk Hills. Representative Plateau streams include the middle Honey Creek, Neosho, Spring, and Elk Rivers. Grand and Hudson Lakes are representative Plateau lakes. Spring Creek exemplifies the Dissected-Elk Hills, as well as Eucha and Spavinaw Lakes and W.R. Holway Reservoir. Salinity is moderate in the Plateau with mean conductivity ranging from 200 (Spring River) to 545 μS/cm (Honey Creek), while lower in the Dissected-Elk Hills (Spring Creek = 154 μS/cm). Lakes typically range from 170 to nearly 400 μS/cm. In streams, nutrient concentrations range from lows of TP = 0.02 and TN = 0.63 ppm at Spring Creek, to highs of 0.21 (Spring River TP) and 2.86 ppm (Honey Creek TN). Trophic status in streams varies from oligotrophic (Spring and Honey Creeks) to mesotrophic (Neosho and Elk Rivers) to eutrophic (Spring River). Lakes are typically phosphorus limited and on the high end of mesotrophic to nearly hyper-eutrophic. Stream
BUMP monitoring sites and streams with TMDL studies completed or underway. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) has begun a demonstration and education project on the Grand Lake watershed focused on educating citizens about reducing nonpoint source runoff. The OCC has also begun a watershed implementation project on Honey Creek as well as Spavinaw/Beaty Creek. These projects are intended to reduce the amount of bacteria, phosphorus, and sediment entering the streams and lake. These projects have indicated that this region could benefit from additional nonpoint source restoration programs. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed a TMDL study on Lytle Creek.
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics.
The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur.
The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters. 14 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial
Use for Agriculture
Grand Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use for Public/Private Water Supply
Grand Region
clarity ranges from good (Spring River = 18 NTU) to excellent, with turbidity means less than 3 at Elk River and Spring and Honey Creeks. Lake clarity is excellent at many lakes, with mean Secchi depths from 100 (Spavinaw) to 160 cm (Holway). Grand Secchi depths vary from excellent (110 cm)
Tar Creek Superfund Site
The Tar Creek Superfund Site is a 40-square mile former lead and zinc mining area. Located in northeastern Oklahoma, the site is part of a larger area known as the Tri-State Mining District. This 2,500-square-mile District in parts of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma once ranked as one of the world’s largest producers of lead and zinc. The Tar Creek site includes the five towns of Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, Commerce, and North Miami, as well as other areas within Ottawa County. A significant amount of land at the site is allotted Indian Land.
Underground mining for lead and zinc by the room-and-pillar method began in 1891 and lasted through early 1970. As water filled the mines, the native sulfide minerals dissolved creating acid mine water. Acid mine drainage containing high concentrations of heavy metals began discharging into Tar Creek in 1979 from natural springs, boreholes, and open mine shafts. It is estimated that seventy six thousand (76,000) acre-feet of shallow ground water is contaminated, approximately 75 million tons of mining waste piles (known as “chat”) remain on the surface of the ground, and flotation ponds (wet or dry ponds containing mine tailings) cover approximately 800 acres. The chat contains heavy metal pollutants, such as lead, cadmium, and zinc.
The principal groundwater-bearing units within the Site are the Mississippian Boone Formation and the Cambro-Ordovician Roubidoux Formation. The headwaters of Tar Creek are located in Cherokee County, Kansas; the creek flows southward through the Site and into the Grand River. Lytle Creek is a major tributary of Tar Creek. The headwaters of Beaver Creek are located north of Quapaw; the creek flows through the Quapaw powwow grounds and into the Spring River. Tar Creek and Beaver Creek are impacted by contaminated mine drainage, and the entire site is located within the watershed of Grand Lake. Water impairments include surface water degradation by the discharge of acid mine water, and the threat of contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer by downward migration of acid mine water from the overlying Boone aquifer through abandoned wells connecting the two. near the dam to average (35 cm) on the upper end.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality program does not exist in Oklahoma, various aquifer studies have been completed, and data are available from municipal authorities and other sources. The Grand region is underlain by several major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Water from the Northern, Middle, and Lower Neosho River alluvial aquifers yield water that is generally hard, typically of a sodium/calcium bicarbonate Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Grand Regional Report 15
Water Quality Impairments
Grand Region
Regional water quality impairments
based on the 2008 Integrated Water
Quality Assessment Report. Many
surface waters in this region have
impacts from eutrophication, particularly
in water supply reservoirs.
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired
when its quality does not meet the
standards prescribed for its beneficial
uses. For example, impairment of the
Public and Private Water Supply beneficial
use means the use of the waterbody
as a drinking water supply is hindered.
Impairment of the Agricultural use means
the use of the waterbody for livestock
watering, irrigation or other agricultural
uses is hindered. Impairments can exist
for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife
Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program
(BUMP), established in 1998 to document
and quantify impairments of assigned
beneficial uses of the state’s lakes
and streams, provides information for
supporting and updating the OWQS and
prioritizing pollution control programs. A set
of rules known as “use support assessment
protocols” is also used to determine
whether beneficial uses of waterbodies are
being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after
impairments have been identified, a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is
conducted to establish the sources of
impairments—whether from point sources
(discharges) or non-point sources (runoff).
The study will then determine the amount
of reduction necessary to meet the
applicable water quality standards in that
waterbody and allocate loads among the
various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s
water quality conditions, see the most
recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP
Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated
Water Quality Assessment Report, a
comprehensive assessment of water quality
in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes required
by the federal Clean Water Act and
developed by the ODEQ.
type, and in some areas, exceeds drinking
water standards. Alluvial aquifers are highly
vulnerable to contamination from surface
activities due to their high porosities and
permeability and shallow water tables.
However, alluvial water is generally suitable
for most purposes. The major bedrock aquifer
of the region is the Roubidoux. Part of the
Ozark aquifer, the Roubidoux underlies
nearly two-thirds of the region. Water is hard
but generally has low total mineral content.
However, in the far western portion of the
aquifer, concentrations of chloride, sulfate,
and fluoride exceed drinking water standards,
and there is naturally occurring radioactivity
in some areas. Large concentrations of gross-alpha
radioactivity and radium-226 occur
near the western edge and appear to be
correlated with chloride concentrations.
The aquifer is a confined aquifer and
is not vulnerable to contamination
from surface activities. Water
from the adjacent minor Boone
Formation is of good quality, but
due to its lithology, the aquifer
is susceptible to contamination
from surface sources. Sinkholes and
fractures provide direct conduits for
precipitation and runoff to transport
contaminants to the water table. Lead
and zinc ores were mined from the
Boone Formation in northeastern
Oklahoma, southeastern Kansas,
and southwestern Missouri from
about 1890 to 1970. Water in the
abandoned zinc and lead mines is
contaminated with acid mine water.
16 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection Areas
Grand Region
Special OWQS provisions in place to protect surface waters.
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
The High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
The Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater. The vulnerability of groundwater basins has been assessed by the OWRB and the Arkansas River alluvial aquifer has been identified as very highly vulnerable.
Groundwater Protection Areas
Grand Region
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.18 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
Grand Region
Site
Big Cabin Creek near Big Cabin
Neosho (Grand) River near Chouteau
Neosho (Grand) River near Commerce
Neosho (Grand) River near Langley
Spring River near Quapaw
Parameter
All Data Trend
(1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1944-1993, 2000-2009)1
Recent Trend (2000-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
All Data Trend (1975-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
NT
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1 Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the Grand Region are:
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity and total phosphorus on Neosho River•
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity on Spring River•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
Grand Region
Site
Lake Eucha
Fort Gibson Lake
Grand Lake
Spavinaw Lake
Parameter
(1995-2009)
(1991-2007)
(1995-2009)
(1996-2009)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
NT
NT
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concerns in the Grand Region are:
Significant upward trends for both chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus on Fort Gibson and Spavinaw reservoirs•
Significant upward trends for turbidity on Eucha and Spavinaw reservoirs• 20 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
Grand Region
Projected water demand by sector. Municipal and Industrial is projected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for approximately 59% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Water Demand
The Grand Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 54% (20,200 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial sector.
Municipal and Industrial demand is projected to remain the largest demand sector in the region, accounting for approximately 59% of the total regional demand in 2060. Currently, 49% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 51% by bedrock groundwater.
Thermoelectric Power demands are projected to account for up approximately 13% of the 2060 demand. The Associated Electric facility, which is supplied by surface water, is the largest user of water for thermoelectric power generation in the region.
Livestock demand is projected to account for 12% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 4% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 96% by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the region is predominantly chicken, followed distantly by cattle for cow-calf production, dairy cows, and sheep.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to account for 10% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 3% of the demand from this sector is supplied by surface water and 97% by bedrock groundwater. The predominant irrigated crops in the Grand Region are pasture grasses.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is projected to account for 5% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 39% of the demand from this sector is supplied by alluvial groundwater and 61% by bedrock groundwater.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account for approximately 1% of the 2060 demand. Currently, demand from this sector is supplied by bedrock groundwater.
There is no Self-Supplied Industrial demand in the region.
Population and demand projection data developed specifically for OCWP analyses focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Water Demand
Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors.
Water Demand Sectors
nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector.
Self-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
n Self-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system. Water use data and employment counts were included in this sector, when available.
n Oil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as Self-Supplied Industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector.
n Municipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
n Livestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
n Crop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports.
OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin.
Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the Basin Summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports.
Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
Grand Region
The Grand Region’s water needs account for about 2% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 54% (20,200 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Municipal and Industrial sector.
Total Water Demand by Sector
Grand Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
2,430
6,320
22,060
70
0
1,920
4,490
37,300
2020
3,110
6,400
24,270
100
0
2,150
5,010
41,040
2030
3,780
6,480
26,560
140
0
2,360
5,590
44,920
2040
4,460
6,560
28,930
190
0
2,590
6,240
48,970
2050
4,980
6,630
31,380
240
0
2,830
6,960
53,020
2060
5,810
6,710
33,890
290
0
3,080
7,760
57,550
Total Water Demand
by Sector
Grand Region22 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
Grand Region
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.
The Grand Watershed Planning Region includes 69 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.)
In terms of 2010 population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Miami, Grove Municipal Services Authority, Vinita PWA, Pryor, and Mayes County RWD #2. These five systems provide service for approximately 40 percent of the population served by public water providers in the region.
Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.
Public Water Providers Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ADAIR
OK1021613
Mayes
107
721
796
861
936
1,011
1,086
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Ottawa
98
1,422
1,518
1,602
1,699
1,807
1,916
BERNICE
OK2002166
Delaware
70
2,606
3,004
3,357
3,754
4,152
4,594
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Craig
215
318
358
388
427
457
497
BLUE JACKET PWA
OK2001802
Craig
131
280
317
345
382
410
447
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Rogers
211
2,597
2,918
3,197
3,455
3,712
3,991
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 9
OK1021733
Cherokee
50
157
181
204
228
250
274
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Cherokee
109
3,507
4,029
4,543
5,066
5,573
6,095
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Mayes
120
1,987
2,184
2,372
2,568
2,775
2,981
COLCORD PWA
OK2002157
Delaware
82
856
981
1,106
1,231
1,374
1,517
COMMERCE
OK2005810
Ottawa
80
3,704
3,957
4,210
4,477
4,757
5,023
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Craig
128
325
360
393
430
468
507
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Craig
101
4,070
4,510
4,930
5,396
5,868
6,361
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Craig
65
95
105
115
126
137
148
CRAIG CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2001807
Craig
154
529
586
640
701
762
826
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Delaware
224
94
108
122
136
151
167
DELAWARE CO RWD # 3
OK1221615
Delaware
50
683
786
885
987
1,097
1,212
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Delaware
87
419
481
542
605
672
743
DELAWARE CO RWD #10
OK6002158
Delaware
164
1,465
1,685
1,897
2,116
2,353
2,599
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Delaware
63
879
1,011
1,138
1,270
1,412
1,560
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Delaware
55
452
520
585
653
726
802
FAIRLAND
OK2005809
Ottawa
100
1,042
1,110
1,177
1,255
1,332
1,409
GRAND LAKE PWA
OK1021691
Delaware
219
1,988
2,286
2,575
2,872
3,193
3,528
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware
214
11,517
13,242
14,909
16,634
18,493
20,429
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Mayes
232
103
113
123
133
144
155
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee
77
1,360
1,572
1,763
1,976
2,167
2,358
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig
148
309
343
374
410
446
483
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware
403
2,600
2,984
3,359
3,744
4,163
4,601
KANSAS PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2002135
Delaware
153
717
825
932
1,040
1,157
1,273
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Craig
179
4,046
4,425
4,804
5,310
5,689
6,195
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware
348
2,099
2,414
2,718
3,033
3,371
3,725
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes
186
1,284
1,424
1,547
1,671
1,811
1,952
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes
93
1,646
1,811
1,964
2,129
2,294
2,469
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Mayes
146
7,721
8,490
9,223
9,992
10,781
11,589
MAYES CO RWD # 3
OK1021640
Mayes
62
2,471
2,717
2,951
3,198
3,450
3,708
MAYES CO RWD # 4
OK3004617
Mayes
176
4,220
4,642
5,042
5,464
5,895
6,334
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes
92
3,346
3,679
3,996
4,330
4,672
5,022
MAYES CO RWD # 6
OK1021666
Mayes
124
4,303
4,732
5,140
5,569
6,009
6,45924 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers/Retail Population Served (2 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Mayes
92
438
481
523
566
611
657
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Mayes
50
463
509
553
600
647
695
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Mayes
86
2,265
2,491
2,705
2,931
3,162
3,399
MIAMI
OK2005813
Ottawa
130
13,914
14,870
15,788
16,782
17,825
18,858
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Ottawa
61
445
474
503
532
570
599
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Craig
133
142
158
172
189
205
222
OAKS WATER WORKS INC
OK2002159
Delaware
78
429
496
553
620
687
753
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Mayes
135
3,900
4,289
4,659
5,048
5,447
5,855
OTTAWA CO RWD # 1
OK2005805
Ottawa
70
465
497
528
561
596
630
OTTAWA CO RWD # 2
OK2005804
Ottawa
133
711
760
806
857
910
963
OTTAWA CO RWD # 3
OK2005806
Ottawa
107
162
173
183
195
207
219
OTTAWA CO RWD # 4
OK2005801
Ottawa
112
662
708
751
799
848
897
OTTAWA CO RWD #5
OK2005840
Ottawa
153
762
814
864
919
975
1,032
OTTAWA CO RWD #6
OK2005859
Ottawa
108
407
435
462
491
522
552
OTTAWA CO RWD #7
OK2005860
Ottawa
80
508
543
576
612
650
688
PEGGS WATER COMPANY
OK1221630
Cherokee
85
2,021
2,322
2,619
2,920
3,212
3,513
PRYOR
OK3004611
Mayes
149
8,954
9,847
10,697
11,589
12,504
13,441
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Mayes
55
129
141
154
167
180
193
QUAPAW
OK2005811
Ottawa
159
1,012
1,081
1,147
1,220
1,295
1,371
QUAPAW TRIBE
OK2005812
Ottawa
77
1,933
2,064
2,190
2,326;
2,467
2,624
SALINA PWA
OK1021603
Mayes
177
1,461
1,611
1,742
1,892
2,033
2,192
SPAVINAW
OK1021616
Mayes
69
580
636
692
748
814
870
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Craig
181
11,491
12,747
13,938
15,257
16,593
17,977
WAGONER CO RWD # 1
OK1021650
Wagoner
100
414
463
503
540
576
614
WAGONER CO RWD # 2
OK1021643
Wagoner
70
2,072
2,314
2,515
2,700
2,881
3,072
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
110
3,927
4,386
4,766
5,116
5,460
5,822
WELCH PWA
OK2001801
Craig
87
1,285
1,421
1,558
1,713
1,850
2,005
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates data were taken from 2007 OWRB Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ADAIR
OK1021613
Mayes
86
95
103
112
121
130
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Ottawa
156
166
176
186
198
210
BERNICE
OK2002166
Delaware
204
236
263
294
326
360
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Craig
76
86
93
103
110
120
BLUE JACKET PWA
OK2001802
Craig
41
47
51
56
60
66
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Rogers
613
689
755
816
877
942
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 9
OK1021733
Cherokee
9
10
11
13
14
15
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Cherokee
429
493
556
620
682
746
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Mayes
266
292
317
344
371
399
COLCORD PWA
OK2002157
Delaware
79
90
102
113
126
139
COMMERCE
OK2005810
Ottawa
331
353
376
400
425
448
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Craig
47
52
56
62
67
73
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Craig
462
512
559
612
666
722
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Craig
7
8
8
9
10
11
CRAIG CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2001807
Craig
91
101
110
121
131
143
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Delaware
24
27
31
34
38
42
DELAWARE CO RWD # 3
OK1221615
Delaware
38
44
50
55
61
68
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Delaware
41
47
53
59
66
72
DELAWARE CO RWD #10
OK6002158
Delaware
269
309
349
389
432
478
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Delaware
62
71
80
90
100
110
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Delaware
28
32
36
40
45
49
FAIRLAND
OK2005809
Ottawa
117
124
132
141
149
158
GRAND LAKE PWA
OK1021691
Delaware
488
561
632
705
783
865
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware
2,756
3,169
3,568
3,981
4,425
4,889
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Mayes
27
29
32
35
37
40
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee
118
136
152
171
187
204
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig
51
57
62
68
74
80
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware
1,173
1,347
1,516
1,689
1,879
2,077
KANSAS PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2002135
Delaware
123
142
160
179
199
219
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Craig
812
888
965
1,066
1,142
1,244
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware
818
941
1,060
1,182
1,314
1,452
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes
267
297
322
348
377
407
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes
171
188
204
221
238
256
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Mayes
1,264
1,390
1,510
1,636
1,765
1,897
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Projections of Retail Water Demand
Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demand includes water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demand includes customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demand doesn’t include wholesale water to other providers.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations.
The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses.
For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems.26 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Demand Forecast (2 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
MAYES CO RWD # 3
OK1021640
Mayes
170
187
204
221
238
256
MAYES CO RWD # 4
OK3004617
Mayes
831
914
993
1,076
1,161
1,248
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes
346
380
413
448
483
519
MAYES CO RWD # 6
OK1021666
Mayes
596
656
712
772
832
895
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Mayes
45
50
54
58
63
68
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Mayes
26
28
31
33
36
39
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Mayes
219
241
262
284
306
329
MIAMI
OK2005813
Ottawa
2,026
2,165
2,299
2,444
2,596
2,746
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Ottawa
30
32
34
36
39
41
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Craig
21
23
26
28
31
33
OAKS WATER WORKS INC
OK2002159
Delaware
37
43
48
54
60
66
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Mayes
592
651
707
766
827
889
OTTAWA CO RWD # 1
OK2005805
Ottawa
36
39
41
44
47
49
OTTAWA CO RWD # 2
OK2005804
Ottawa
106
113
120
128
136
144
OTTAWA CO RWD # 3
OK2005806
Ottawa
19
21
22
23
25
26
OTTAWA CO RWD # 4
OK2005801
Ottawa
83
89
94
100
106
113
OTTAWA CO RWD #5
OK2005840
Ottawa
131
139
148
157
167
177
OTTAWA CO RWD #6
OK2005859
Ottawa
49
53
56
59
63
67
OTTAWA CO RWD #7
OK2005860
Ottawa
46
49
52
55
58
62
PEGGS WATER COMPANY
OK1221630
Cherokee
192
220
248
277
305
333
PRYOR
OK3004611
Mayes
1,499
1,648
1,790
1,940
2,093
2,250
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Mayes
8
9
9
10
11
12
QUAPAW
OK2005811
Ottawa
180
193
204
217
231
244
QUAPAW TRIBE
OK2005812
Ottawa
167
178
189
201
213
227
SALINA PWA
OK1021603
Mayes
290
320
346
376
404
435
SPAVINAW
OK1021616
Mayes
44
49
53
57
62
67
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Craig
2,335
2,590
2,832
3,101
3,372
3,653
WAGONER CO RWD # 1
OK1021650
Wagoner
46
52
56
60
65
69
WAGONER CO RWD # 2
OK1021643
Wagoner
162
181
197
212
226
241
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
483
539
586
629
671
716
WELCH PWA
OK2001801
Craig
126
139
152
167
181
196
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution to residential homes and businesses. Retail demand does not include wholesaled water.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or
Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Bernice
E
T
Bernice
E
T
BERNICE
OK2002166
Afton PWA
E
T
Afton PWA
E
T
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Vinita PWA
O
T
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Consolidated RWD #1 Nowata & Rogers Co
Mayes Co RWD #5
O
E
T
T
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Hulbert PWA
E
T
Tahlequah PWA
O
T
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
O
T
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Vinita PWA
T
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Vinita PWA
Ketchum PWA
O
O
T
T
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Ironside Water District Inc
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Jay
O
T
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Ketchum PWA
O
T
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Grove Municipal Services Auth
O
T
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Grove Municipal Services Auth
O
T
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware Co RWD #9
Delaware Co RWD #6
O
O
T
T
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Pryor
O
T
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee Co RWD #11
E
T
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig Co RWD #4
Vinita PWA
T
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware Co RWD #1
O
T
Tulsa (Lake Eucha)
O
R
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Delaware Co RWD 7
Craig County RWD 2
O
O
T
T
Langley
E
T
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware County RWD #7
Craig Co RWD #2
O
O
T
T
Langley
E
T
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes Co RWD #8
Ketchum PWA Delaware Co System
Ketchum PWA
O
E
E
T
T
T
Ketchum PWA
E
T
Wholesale Water Transfers (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demand. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems.
Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers. 28 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or
Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes Co RWD #9
O
T
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Inola Water Works Inc
Rogers Co RWD #6
O
T
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
T
MAYES CO RWD #4
OK3004617
Rogers Co RWD #7
Mayes Co RWD #5
O
O
T
T
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
O
T
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes County RWD #4
Pryor West RWD #4
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Chelsea Economic Dev. Auth
O
O
E
T
T
T
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Langley
Mayes Co RWD #6
O
T
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Locust Grove
O
T
MIAMI
OK2005813
North Miami
T
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Miami
T
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Vinita PWA
T
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Broken Arrow WTP
Pryor
Chouteau
Mayes Co RWD #2
Mayes Co RWD #4
Mayes Co RWD #5
Mayes Co RWD #7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
PRYOR
OK3004611
Highway 69 Water District
Pryor East RWD #1
O
O
T
T
Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
O
T
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Pryor
O
T
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Big Cabin PWA
Craig Co RWD #2
Craig Co RWD #1
Ironside Water District Inc
North Vinita Water Co-op Inc
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
Wholesale Water Transfers (2 of 2)
Grand RegionGrand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
ADAIR
OK1021613
Mayes
---
---
---
---
ADAIR CO RWS & SWMD #6
OK2000145
Adair
---
---
---
---
AFTON PWA
OK1021696
Ottawa
---
---
---
---
BERNICE
OK2002166
Delaware
146
0%
0%
100%
BIG CABIN PWA
OK3001805
Craig
---
---
---
---
BLUE JACKET PWA
OK2001802
Craig
70
0%
0%
100%
CHELSEA ECONOMIC DEV. AUTH.
OK1021504
Rogers
1094
100%
0%
0%
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 2 (KEYS)
OK1021711
Cherokee
329
100%
0%
0%
CHEROKEE CO RWD # 9
OK1021733
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
CHEROKEE CO RWD #11
OK1221637
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
CHOUTEAU
OK3004615
Mayes
---
---
---
---
COLCORD PWA
OK2002157
Delaware
320
0%
0%
100%
COMMERCE
OK2005810
Ottawa
1170
---
---
100
CRAIG CO RWD #1
OK3001801
Craig
---
---
---
---
CRAIG CO RWD #2
OK3001802
Craig
140
0%
0%
100%
CRAIG CO RWD #4
OK3001803
Craig
---
---
---
---
CRAIG CO RWS & SWMD #3
OK2001807
Craig
620
0%
0%
100%
DELAWARE CO RWD # 1
OK3002134
Delaware
200
0%
0%
100%
DELAWARE CO RWD # 3
OK1221615
Delaware
---
---
---
---
DELAWARE CO RWD # 7
OK3002138
Delaware
---
---
---
---
DELAWARE CO RWD #10
OK6002158
Delaware
169
---
---
100
DELAWARE CO RWD #9
OK3002144
Delaware
---
---
---
---
DELAWARE RWSG&SW MGMT DIST #6
OK3002137
Delaware
---
---
---
---
FAIRLAND
OK2005809
Ottawa
81
0%
0%
100%
GRAND LAKE PWA
OK1021691
Delaware
---
---
---
---
GROVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AUTH.
OK1021614
Delaware
---
---
---
---
HIGHWAY 69 WATER DISTRICT
OK3004610
Mayes
---
---
---
---
HULBERT PWA
OK1021620
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
IRONSIDE WATER DISTRICT INC
OK3001804
Craig
---
---
---
---
JAY
OK1021674
Delaware
---
---
---
---
KANSAS PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY
OK2002135
Delaware
179
0%
0%
100%
KETCHUM PWA
OK1021612
Craig
---
---
---
---
KETCHUM PWA DELAWARE CO SYSTEM
OK1221638
Delaware
---
---
---
---
LANGLEY
OK1021604
Mayes
---
---
---
---
LOCUST GROVE
OK1021668
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 2
OK3004608
Mayes
---
---
---
---
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (1 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.30 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals - 2010 (2 of 2)
Grand Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
(AFY)
Percent
MAYES CO RWD # 3
OK1021640
Mayes
262
---
---
100
MAYES CO RWD # 4
OK3004617
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 5
OK3004616
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 6
OK1021666
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 7
OK3004627
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 8
OK3004637
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MAYES CO RWD # 9
OK1021678
Mayes
---
---
---
---
MIAMI
OK2005813
Ottawa
5,336.4
0%
0%
100%
NORTH MIAMI
OK3005801
Ottawa
---
---
---
---
NORTH VINITA WATER COOP INC
OK3001806
Craig
---
---
---
---
OAKS WATER WORKS INC
OK2002159
Delaware
---
---
---
---
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
OK1021602
Mayes
---
---
---
---
OTTAWA CO RWD # 1
OK2005805
Ottawa
322
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD # 2
OK2005804
Ottawa
502
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD # 3
OK2005806
Ottawa
322
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD # 4
OK2005801
Ottawa
769.8
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD #5
OK2005840
Ottawa
50
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD #6
OK2005859
Ottawa
640
0%
0%
100%
OTTAWA CO RWD #7
OK2005860
Ottawa
320
0%
0%
100%
PEGGS WATER COMPANY
OK1221630
Cherokee
---
---
---
---
PRYOR
OK3004611
Mayes
2,382
100%
0%
0%
PRYOR EAST RWD #1
OK3004609
Mayes
---
---
---
---
QUAPAW
OK2005811
Ottawa
2,368
0%
0%
100%
QUAPAW TRIBE
OK2005812
Ottawa
1,225
---
---
100%
SALINA PWA
OK1021603
Mayes
---
---
---
---
VINITA PWA
OK1021611
Craig
3,620
100%
0%
0%
SPAVINAW
OK1021616
Mayes
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 1
OK1021650
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 2
OK1021643
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WAGONER CO RWD # 9
OK1021527
Wagoner
---
---
---
---
WELCH PWA
OK2001801
Craig
78
0%
0%
100%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemGrand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Grand Region
City of Adair (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Adair City Lake
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Complete project to connect and purchase water from Mayes County RWD #6.
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add and a replace portion of distribution system lines.
Adair County RWS & SWMD #6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: possible water Flint Ridge RWD.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Afton PWA (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines. Water Treatment Plant upgrades.
Town of Bernice (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Emergency source: Afton
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Big Cabin PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Vinita Utilities Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: Connect to Craig County RWD #2 to obtain water with Vinita.
Blue Jacket (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Replace the rest of the asbestos cement water lines in the distribution system. Move the chlorine station.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Chelsea Economic Dev. Auth (Rogers County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oologah Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Cherokee County RWD 2 (Keys)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Lake Tenkiller
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: Possible water purchase from Tahlequah.
Cherokee County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fort Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: connect to Cherokee County RWD 11.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Cherokee County RWD 11
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Double Spring Creek
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: Fourteen Mile Creek.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Chouteau (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add and replace distribution system lines.
Colcord PWA (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Rehabilitate two filters and replace water lines within the water treatment plant.
City of Commerce (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Craig County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Vinita Utilities Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Loop distribution system lines. Relocate water lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Craig County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Vinita Utilities Authority, Ketchum PWA
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: increase supplies from Ketchum PWA.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new 30 mile pipeline from Ketchum.
Craig County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ironside Water District
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Craig County RWS & SWMD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Refurbish wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe.
Delaware County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Jay
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish standpipe; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Delaware County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace distribution system lines.
Provider Supply Plans
In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans.
In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems.
Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems. 32 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Grand Region
Delaware County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ketchum PWA
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Delaware County RWD 10
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Repair leaks in distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add standpipe; new WTP.
Delaware County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Delaware County RWSG & SW Mgmt Dist. 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Grove
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Fairland (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater; Ottawa County RWD 6
Emergency source: Ottawa County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells; purchase water from Ottawa County RWD 6
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Grand Lake PWA (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: groundwater; Drill new wells.
Infrastructure improvements: add storage and standpipe; add distribution system lines.
Grove Municipal Serv. Auth. (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Expand surface WTP; add storage.
Highway 69 Water District (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: City of Pryor
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Hulbert PWA (Cherokee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: 14 Mile Creek
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New booster pump for existing standpipe.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new WTP.
Ironside Water District Inc. (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Vinita Utilities Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of main and distribution lines; add chlorine booster station.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new interconnects between Big Cabin and Craig County RWD 2.
Jay (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lake Eucha
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tanks.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: rehab 2 clarifiers at existing surface WTP; new WTP.
Kansas Public Works Auth. (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: repair fire hydrants; rehabilitate 2 filters at WTP.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add main line to connect to Flint Ridge RWD for emergency connection.
Ketchum PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of water main lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New WTP to replace 2 old WTPs.
Ketchum PWA Delaware County System
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: New WTP to replace 2 old WTPs.
Town of Langley (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Locust Grove (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add clarifier to WTP; add carbon feed system; add discharge to lake.
Mayes County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Mayes County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Grand Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; add distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines
Mayes County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Mayes County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority, Mayes County RWD 4
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: upgrade distribution system pumps and lines.
Mayes County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Lake Hudson (Markham Ferry)
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add water tower.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; increase WTP capacity.
Mayes County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Mayes County RWD 8
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Mayes County RWD 6
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Mayes County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: W.R. Holway Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: Expanding water treatment plant and rehabilitating two water towers.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
City of Miami (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: add pressure pumps.Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
City of Pryor (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Oklahoma Ordnance Works Auth.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Pryor East RWD 1 (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Jay
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Town of Quapaw (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Quapaw Tribe (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Salina PWA (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines; upgrades to WTP.
Town of Spavinaw (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Spavinaw Lake
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Vinita PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: None identified.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
OCWP Water Provider Survey
Grand Region
North Miami (Ottawa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Miami
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill another additional well.
North Vinita Water Coop Inc. (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Town of Vinita
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Oaks Water Works Inc. (Delaware County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater.
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
OK Ordnance Works Auth. (Mayes County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Grand River
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater, Wyandotte Nation
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Ottawa County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Ottawa County RWD 4
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 5
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage tank.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Ottawa County RWD 6
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Infrastructure improvements: replace a portion of distribution system lines.
Ottawa County RWD 7
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater, City of Commerce
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Peggs Water Company (Cherokee County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Spring Creek
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Wagoner County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Ft. Gibson Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish water tanks; replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add filter to WTP.
Wagoner County RWD 9
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fort Gibson Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new WTP.
Welch PWA (Craig County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.34 Grand Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water.
Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region.
Infrastructure Cost Summary
Grand Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$277
$450
$109
$836
Medium
$237
$562
$383
$1,182
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$26
$110
$136
Total
$514
$1,038
$602
$2,154
1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 or fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category refers specifically to rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $2.2 billion is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure needs of the Grand • Region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur between 2021 and 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 90 percent of the providers’ estimated • infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects.
Medium-sized providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately six percent of the total costs.• Grand Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 35
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan36 Grand Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur.
Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%.
The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report.
Primary Options
To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements.
Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of Demand Management for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report.
Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin.
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Reservoir Use
“Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs.
The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands.
Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir site(s) unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate Grand Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand.
Increasing Reliance on
Surface Water
“Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion.
Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source.
Increasing Reliance on
Groundwater
“Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers.
Expanded Options
In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website.
Expanded Conservation Measures
Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the report Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects.
Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodolo